Messages in this thread | | | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Memory management livelock | Date | Fri, 3 Oct 2008 14:29:09 +1000 |
| |
On Friday 03 October 2008 14:17, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 14:07:55 +1000 Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> > > Possibly a new mutex in the address_space? > > That's another, umm 24 bytes minimum in the address_space (and inode). > That's fairly ouch, which is why Miklaus did that hokey bit-based > thing.
Well yeah, it would be a bit based mutex in mapping->flags with hashed waitqueues. Like Miklaus's.
> > Yeah... I went to break the sync/async cases into two, but it looks like > > it may not have been worthwhile. Just another branch might be the best > > way to go. > > Yup. Could add another do-this flag in the writeback_control, perhaps. > Or even a function pointer.
Yeah... possibly we could just _always_ do the PAGECACHE_TAG_FSYNC thing if mode != WB_SYNC_NONE. I think if we had the infrastructure there to do it all, it should always be something we want to do for data integrity writeout.
| |